Richard III and the princes in the tower

[Mayerling]

Richard books

The Daughter of Time - a wonderful place to start, but Tey is hamstrung that she is using the researches of historians from the late 19th Century like Gardiner and Markham (whom she strongly relies on - Sir Clement Markham is better recalled for his support of polar explorers like Robert Falcon Scott). By the way, try her take on the Elizabeth Canning Mystery of 1753-54 transplanted into modern Britain in THE FRANCISE AFFAIR.

The books of historian Paul Murray Kendall are now half a century old, but he wrote well about "The Yorkist Age" and about figures like Richard (a full biography), King Louis XI (a biography of "the Spider King"), Warwick "the King Maker" (another biography). Kendall was really the first first rate scholar of the period to come out on Richard's side. He also edited a handy volume from W.W.Norton and Compnay RICHARD III: THE GREAT DEBATE. Besides the opening essay by Kendall he included the relevant sections from Thomas More's HISTORY OF KING HENRY VII and Horace Walpole's HISTORIC DOUBTS.
Those two works are hard to come by, so Kendall was right in making a small version of the sections about the disappearances and murders.

Aubrey Williamson - THE MYSTERY OF THE PRINCES (1978). This volume won the Crime Writer's Gold Dagger Award for best book on a famous mystery. It is balanced but comes out for Richard.

Bertram Field - ROYAL BLOOD: RICHARD III AND THE MYSTERY OF THE PRINCES (1998). The first 95% of the book is worthwhile - and it too is pro Richard. But beware a romantically inclined historian. Field suddenly gets soppy at the end, suggesting that a continued Yorkist dynasty would have brought untold happiness to England the isles, and Europe until the present day. He apparently does not realize how many competing go into the events that history is made from.

Those are the books I have read on Richard.

Jeff

[The Grave Maurice]

For everyone interested in this case check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kQoKt2Kf4

Thanks for pointing this out to us, Eppi. It takes a while to get through all 22 clips but well worth it---especially the opportunity to see a young, but already feisty, David Starkey. I thought that the closing argument by the QC for the defence was masterful.

[Graham]

Hi,Graham.
Sounds like theres a lot of new things going on at Bosworth,i sure hope to visit the site once-are the reenactments any good??
Im not sure i agree that he wasnt good on politics though.What makes you think that?

Eppi

As far as I'm aware they don't do re-enactments at Bosworth. At least I hope they don't, because such things tend to be embarrassingly bad. What makes you think that there actually are re-enactments at Bosworth?

Richard, as did most mediaeval monarchs, assumed that his kingship was a right, courtesy of God. The need to indulge in what we refer to as 'politics' never arose in the mediaeval mind, because a king was king due to God's will. Those who disagreed were fit only to be eliminated. Politics as we might understand the term is a relatively modern concept, probably no earlier than the reign of Elizabeth I.

Graham

[The Grave Maurice]

I have a friend who is quite an avid Ricardian and he is always sending me books on the topic. I'm really not very knowledgeable on the topic, but Carson's book seemed to me to be reasonably balanced, and she certainly writes quite well. You might enjoy it if you happen to run across a copy.

[Eppi]

I think the disappearance of the Princes was purely an example of late-mediaeval power politics, with no hard feelings intended on anyone's part.
The Princes were the uncrowned Edward V and his brother Richard, and to ensure that Edward was never crowned, Richard, Buckingham et al declared that the marriage of Edward's father Edward IV was illegal and that Edward was therefore illegitimate and unable to accede the throne. Just to ensure that neither Edward nor his brother popped up at some future date to make things awkward for him, Richard had them 'disappeared' and it is highly likely that most hard-headed courtiers at the time fully understood this move. Legend has it that Perkin Warbeck of 1499 revolt fame was in fact Edward V's brother Richard, but it's been pretty well proven that he was an imposter.

By mediaeval standards Richard was a 'good king', even possessing something of a social conscience. Pity he wasn't much good at politics. I think he's the only British monarch with no known resting-place.

I live quite close to Bosworth Battlefield site, and visit it frequently to soak up the atmos. Lots going on there at the moment, regarding new knowledge of just where the various aspects of the battle took place. Loads of new discoveries, especially firearm projectiles.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi,Graham.
Sounds like theres a lot of new things going on at Bosworth,i sure hope to visit the site once-are the reenactments any good??
Im not sure i agree that he wasnt good on politics though.What makes you think that?

Eppi

[Eppi]

Eppi,

What did you think of Annette Carson's book, Richard III: The Maligned King, that came out a couple of years ago?

Haventnt read it, Maurice-Last book i read was Michael K. Jones "Bosworth 1485-The psychology of a battle".Why,is it worth a read?

EPPI

[Graham]

I think the disappearance of the Princes was purely an example of late-mediaeval power politics, with no hard feelings intended on anyone's part.
The Princes were the uncrowned Edward V and his brother Richard, and to ensure that Edward was never crowned, Richard, Buckingham et al declared that the marriage of Edward's father Edward IV was illegal and that Edward was therefore illegitimate and unable to accede the throne. Just to ensure that neither Edward nor his brother popped up at some future date to make things awkward for him, Richard had them 'disappeared' and it is highly likely that most hard-headed courtiers at the time fully understood this move. Legend has it that Perkin Warbeck of 1499 revolt fame was in fact Edward V's brother Richard, but it's been pretty well proven that he was an imposter.

By mediaeval standards Richard was a 'good king', even possessing something of a social conscience. Pity he wasn't much good at politics. I think he's the only British monarch with no known resting-place.

I live quite close to Bosworth Battlefield site, and visit it frequently to soak up the atmos. Lots going on there at the moment, regarding new knowledge of just where the various aspects of the battle took place. Loads of new discoveries, especially firearm projectiles.

Cheers,

Graham

[The Grave Maurice]

Eppi,

What did you think of Annette Carson's book, Richard III: The Maligned King, that came out a couple of years ago?

[Eppi]

For everyone interested in this case check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kQoKt2Kf4

[Eppi]

Even if......Richard planned his move for the throne..AND got Northumberland in on it........Still proves nothing about possible murders..........
Steve

Maybe not ,but it certainly goes a long way........


eppi

[Eppi]

I don't think you have much reason to regret purchasing Tey's books. It's quite a good book, published in 1951. As for Penman, her book is much more recent, so any new information or theories might not have been available to Josephine Tey. "The Daughter of Time" refers to history. History is the daughter of time, and I think Tey does a good job of illustrating that. It's a classic, Maurice. Give it a chance and I think you'll enjoy it.

As i mentioned earlier,Teys book is good gateway to this subject.She based her work on clements Marhams "Richard III-the man and the character",but todays scholars thinks it has little ,if anything to do with either.
Tey had acess to Mancinis work but chose to ignore it.

Eppi

[Eppi]

Richard done it. The princes vanished well before his reign ended and were never seen again. They were under his "protection" and therefore he was responsible for their well-being. If someone else had killed them, he'd have made an example of them and if they were still alive when the rumors started circulating that he'd killed them, he could have produced them to end the rumors. They were "missing" at least a year prior to Henry VII taking the throne and the only logical conclusion is that Richard was complicit in their disappearance and since they could hardly be allowed to go free and foment another rebellion, the logical conclusion is that they were dead.

Shortly after his coronation Buckingham rebelled(Richard,in a letter to bishop russel called him "The most untrue creature living") while Richard was on his royal progress.Buckingham was constable of England,he was in London,and had both motive and access.I dot believe Henry VII killed them.

Eppi

[Celesta]

Now you tell me. I recently purchased a first edition of Tey's book for more than many people (including my wife) would think prudent.

I hadn't heard of the Penman book, but I'll get a copy ASAP. Thanks for the tip, and I assume you already know that there are societies devoted to studying his history on both sides of the Atlantic.

I don't think you have much reason to regret purchasing Tey's books. It's quite a good book, published in 1951. As for Penman, her book is much more recent, so any new information or theories might not have been available to Josephine Tey. "The Daughter of Time" refers to history. History is the daughter of time, and I think Tey does a good job of illustrating that. It's a classic, Maurice. Give it a chance and I think you'll enjoy it.

[Ally]

Richard done it. The princes vanished well before his reign ended and were never seen again. They were under his "protection" and therefore he was responsible for their well-being. If someone else had killed them, he'd have made an example of them and if they were still alive when the rumors started circulating that he'd killed them, he could have produced them to end the rumors. They were "missing" at least a year prior to Henry VII taking the throne and the only logical conclusion is that Richard was complicit in their disappearance and since they could hardly be allowed to go free and foment another rebellion, the logical conclusion is that they were dead.

[Steve S]

I love the Tey book -and it seems to make sense..

Ditto............
Steve